The Tripartite Alliance Between Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia: Strategic Independence or a Reproduction of the Dependency System?

 The Tripartite Alliance Between Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia: Strategic Independence or a Reproduction of the Dependency System?

​By Dr. Hussein Yamani

Writer and Researcher in International Economic Relations

​Do not be deceived by the mutual defense agreement between Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. For nearly a century, Arab and Islamic alliances have revolved around the orbit of the colonizer harnessing their resources to serve its ends, while directing their blades only toward our own sons.

​In short: these are alliances aimed at strengthening the grip of colonialism, so do not let their agreement fool you, O free people. Tomorrow, we shall see who will be targeted by the alliances of colonialism's lackeys.

​This is not merely a passing political phrase; rather, it encapsulates a deeper dilemma within the structure of the international system: Can Arab and Islamic nations establish a security framework independent of hegemonies, or do these new alliances merely reproduce the very structure that has governed international relations in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire?

​On August 7, 2026, Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defense agreement in Mecca. According to available sources, the pact dictates that an armed attack on any one of the three nations shall be considered an attack on them all. The three countries presented the pact as a defensive agreement that does not target any specific state.

​However, reading the agreement should not stop at its official wording. International relations are not understood solely through declared intentions, but through balances of power, sources of armament, alliance networks, economic and security ties, and practical outcomes.

​From this perspective, it can be argued that this alliance, in its current form, does not represent a genuine departure from the system imposed by major powers on the region; rather, it may represent a reproduction of it in a new form. While the alliance brings together nations with substantial military and economic capabilities, it does not so far rest upon a self-sufficient, independent foundation in military technology, defense manufacturing, intelligence, and strategic capabilities.

​More importantly, the alliance comes amid a highly volatile regional environment and a broad network of security ties binding regional states to Western powers. Herein lies the paradox: How can an alliance be presented as a project for strategic independence while key levers of military power, technology, and armaments remain tied to the international system led by major powers?

​History provides significant evidence regarding the risks of such a structure. Since the twentieth century, military alliances in the Arab and Islamic world have not been neutral defense arrangements; rather, some were linked to the projects of major powers in managing spheres of influence and countering their rivals. It suffices to recall the experience of the Baghdad Pact in the 1950s which emerged within the context of the Western containment policy during the Cold War to realize that a military alliance can transform from a means of protecting states into a tool for reshaping the region according to the interests of international powers.

​Here, the concept of strategic dependency must be understood. Dependency does not necessarily imply direct military occupation or explicit orders from a colonial state to another. It can be far more complex, manifesting when a state relies on external powers for arms, technology, intelligence, training, finance, and political cover. In such cases, a state's capacity for independent decision-making becomes limited, even if it possesses a powerful army and immense wealth.

​In fact, Saudi-Pakistani defense relations predated the tripartite agreement. In September 2025, Riyadh and Islamabad signed a mutual strategic defense agreement, with Saudi Arabia officially confirming that the deal aimed to enhance defense cooperation and mutual deterrence. Furthermore, in May 2026, Pakistan dispatched thousands of troops, a fighter jet squadron, and an air defense system to Saudi Arabia as part of defense cooperation between the two nations.

​This development reveals that the matter is not merely a political document, but a gradual construction of a new regional security framework. The question here is not only about the strength of this framework, but about the function it will serve: Will it be a tool to liberate Islamic strategic decision-making, or will it turn into a regional force operating within the boundaries set by the existing international order?

​The gravest risk is that the military power of Islamic nations could be turned toward internal and inter-state conflicts, while core causes of the Ummah foremost among them Palestine remain outside the scope of real military and political action. When Islamic armies are directed toward securing borders and mutual interests among regimes, while the regional order fails to produce effective deterrence against occupation, the legitimate question becomes: In whose interest is this power being built?

​This brings us to the core argument: The issue is not that Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia cooperate militarily; cooperation among states is a legitimate principle in international relations. The problem lies in the direction in which this power will be deployed and where this alliance stands within the global network of influence.

​An alliance lacking true industrial, technological, and intelligence independence may inadvertently become a instrument strengthening the very system it seeks independence from. When armies are converted into tools for maintaining regional arrangements that serve the interests of major powers, an increase in military strength does not necessarily translate into an increase in independence.

​Therefore, asserting that this alliance serves only the colonizer's interests can be defended as a critical reading of the nature of the regional system, rather than a mere emotional judgment. Modern colonialism does not always require land occupation; it can achieve its objectives by constructing security and economic structures that keep regional states orbiting within a strategic space defined by major powers.

​True independence is not achieved by altering the names of alliances, but by liberating political decision-making, building defense industries, localizing technology, achieving economic security, and gaining the capacity to safeguard national interests without external dependency.

​Thus, the true benchmark for judging this agreement is not the number of aircraft, troops, and missiles gathered under its banner, but the overarching question: Does this alliance forge an independent Islamic decision, or does it construct a new regional force that performs a function within the established international order?

​History alone will answer this question, but current indicators call for caution, not celebration. If the region continues to rely on major powers for arms, technology, and political cover, while deploying its armies in internal and regional conflicts, the outcome will be the reproduction of dependency in a new guise.

​Hence, we say clearly:

​Do not be deceived by the agreement; for not every alliance is independence, not every power is liberation, and not every gathering of Muslim nations is a project for the unity of the Ummah.

​These are alliances aimed at strengthening the grip of colonialism, so do not let their agreement fool you, O free people. Tomorrow, we shall see who will be targeted by the alliances of colonialism's lackeys!

.Worlds)

This article is in the path of Allah.

And our final prayer is: All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.​ .